fr_article

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, such as tolerance in provision_ref format (e.g., 'Article L. 1233-15' equals 'L1233-15') and error codes (missing_arg, not_found, corpus_error). No contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, front-loading the main purpose and including error codes efficiently. However, it is in Polish which may reduce clarity for non-Polish agents; still, it earns its space.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description states it returns the full verbatim text. It mentions error codes, which is helpful. Annotations cover safety. Additional details about return format or encoding are missing, but overall it is adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes parameters. The description adds value by providing an example and explaining the tolerance behavior of provision_ref, which is not present in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves the full verbatim text of a legal provision using document_id and provision_ref, with an example. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fr_search (search) and fr_list_documents (list).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (fr_search, fr_list_documents, fr_validate_citation). The description implies usage for retrieving a specific article but does not explicitly state when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.